, the nine justices that occupy its chambers carry a heavy responsibility. they have the final say on the law of the land. the principles and idea that guide their decisions are the subject of heated debate. justice antonin scalia is the longest serving justice currently on the court, he is the leading voice for a conservative judicial philosophy known as textualism, some talk about it as originalism. it asserts that laws must be interpreted as they were understood by the men who wrote them. in 2006, justice elena kagan, then the dean of hear extraordinary law school, scalia's alma mater says he is the justice who has had the most important impact over the years on how we think and talk about law. he originally coauthored a new book, it is called reading law, the interpretation of legal text. i am very honored to have justice scalia back on this program. so the first book was about arguing, how to make the case arguing the case. this is called reading law, the interpretation of legal text written brian a. garner -- >> as the earlier book was. >> rose: exactly. so what did you hope to accompl

with this quote, "law and order exists for the purpose of establishing justice. when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress." martin luther king jr. wrote those words from a birmingham jail. 50 years later, over 50 million americans live under correctional control. two million are in prison, five times the number of people incarcerated in 1972. a young black man in america has a one in three chance of gog jail at some point in his life. today we asked what mass incarceration means for our society. it raises questions of race, class, and the meaning of justice. joining me, patricia williams. she a law professor at colombia university american work is to examine race in the american legal system. and michelle alexander, her book "the new jim crow" brought the conversation about mass incarceration to a wider johnson. and eugene jarecki, the filmmaker behind the movie requested the house i live inment. when we use the term "mass incarceration" what are we talking about? >> we're talking about a system that function primarily as

cohabitation between their communities. >> rose: a secretary law state with all -- >> a secular state with-- you know, i have a lot of friends, i don't know whether they are alloways or christian or anything else. that is the syria we would like to see back. >> rose: how do you get passed that? i mean because that is the issue in terms of finding a negotiation, that is the hangup for the russians. and its at the same time the hangup for the people who are taking up arms to fight the government. it is when you have this kind of civil war, somebody warrants to win and they want to kick the other guy out. >> sure. you see that you understand. but solutions are about compromises. and then you see what is the greater good. the greater good in syria is for the country to remain united. for the state not to disappear. for people to go back and live together the way they did a long time ago. >> it's hard toast make that argument with people who think they're winning. >> of course. >> even if they are not -- >> to wait it out and they'll get them. even if they are not winning. >> but you know what

a that there are the law of unintended consequences is always at work in these situations. >> rose: i have heard you say two things. one is that you begin to worry that your concern about the welfare of the men and women in harm's way, you might have too for lack of a better word, had a stronger place in your decision al structural than it ought to be, am i right about that? >> i became to worry i had become too protective of them. >> rose: secondly you seemed to be saying, i began to worry that we didn't know what would be the consequences and that worried you too. and in some sense of how things could get out of control and that it became -- am i real ng you right on that? >> absolutely. >> rose: so those are the two things when weighing the factors to step down that had weight on the decision to step down now? >> when we look at history for a second -- >> i will give you a concrete example. i opposed the intervention in libya. this is not a vital, this is not of vital national interest, and we are already in two wars, in fact, in the situation room i would say can i just finish the two wars i am alre

Excerpts 0 to 6 of about 7 results.